Intelligent Design, Science & Religion

[missmuffet]

3 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I would suggest that it is difficult to judge the Christian walk of another based on their denomination. I once had the tendency to lump Catholics together and consider their theology largely faulty. Working with several over the last 15 years or so and observing their daily walk with Jesus first-hand has since changed my mind.

There is the average "Christian" and there is the born again Christian who has given their life 100% to Jesus Christ. Very different. 

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, missmuffet said:

There is the average "Christian" and there is the born again Christian who has given their life 100% to Jesus Christ.

Yes, and I am suggesting a denominational label is no way to distinguish between the two.

[missmuffet]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Yes, and I am suggesting a denominational label is no way to distinguish between the two.

That is true but to observe someone personally for awhile would distinguish the two. 

[one.opinion]

38 minutes ago, missmuffet said:

That is true but to observe someone personally for awhile would distinguish the two. 

Agreed, that’s why I think it is often unfair to judge people based on their denomination. There are some that are certainly a little off when it comes to Biblical doctrine!

[missmuffet]

5 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Agreed, that’s why I think it is often unfair to judge people based on their denomination. There are some that are certainly a little off when it comes to Biblical doctrine!

A cult will deny one of more of the fundamental truths of the Bible. 

[dhchristian]

As a Christian this is how I see it. 

Evolution as yet to answer the simple common sense question which came first, the chicken or the egg? If the Chicken how did it know it had to reproduce itself to survive, and if the egg, who laid the egg? 

Intelligent Design implies a creator, but does not go so far as to say who that creator is. From this line of thought is where you get such concepts as ancient aliens seeding the planet, and who knows what else.

Creationism explains who the creator is, and how he formed each creature with all the needed tools to survive, In other words answering the question evolution cannot answer. Only an almighty uncreated God that Was and is and is to come can do this. 

What all the stats tell me about evolution and the church is that there exists a lot of half hearted believers in the church. The inerrancy of the Word of God is not a scientific statement, but a statement of one's faith In God.

Of all the theories out there, theistic evolution is the weakest one. it is a compromise with no basis in either scripture nor science. Running a close second for weakest is what is known as Gap theory. Again a compromise between the Word of God and Science that is neither Biblical nor scientifically feasible.

Intelligent design is the latest such compromise, and it might do well in the public sphere to appease both sides of this debate Politically, But it opens the doors to Science fiction to explain the intelligence and source behind creation. I will explain this below. 

Evolution as a viable theory is past its Golden days, unable to answer fundamental common sense questions such as the one's listed above. No amount of time and chance can explain which came first, the chicken or the egg. In order to explain these things evolution would have to add more complexity, and even more time, which other sciences are now throwing into question. An increase in complexity yields an exponential increase in time for chance to accomplish Life, Which Other sciences cannot grant because of the limits on the age of the earth and the universe. Up until this time the astronomical and Physical sciences could get away with saying "we think the earth and the universe is older than imagined", But the limits are being reached to age the earth, and the universe where empirical science stands in contrast to making it any older than they already say it is, and Empirical science over rules non empirical science.

So what we are seeing right now is an attempt to build an alternative "religion" should this eventual paradox be reached, Part of which is Involves and accepts ID But denies the Almighty God. So you now have science fiction trying to work in aliens into the creation, in order to rationalize out God. But the problem with this is that it fails to account for how the aliens were created, and by whom. One theory is to say that the creators that seeded life were extra-dimensional characters that came from a dimension where time does not exist. That is why so much time and resources are being poured into things like CERN to open doors to these extra dimensions. Anything but to admit that there is a creator God.    

 

[ChessPlayer]

3 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Of all the theories out there, theistic evolution is the weakest one. it is a compromise with no basis in either scripture nor science. Running a close second for weakest is what is known as Gap theory. Again a compromise between the Word of God and Science that is neither Biblical nor scientifically feasible.

Hmm... Not entirely sure I agree here. Why would you characterize theistic evolution as weaker (either scientifically or theologically) than YEC or OEC? 

BTW, I've broken up your post into smaller bits to try and get to a few of the key points. Hope you don't mind. 

5 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Evolution as yet to answer the simple common sense question which came first, the chicken or the egg? If the Chicken how did it know it had to reproduce itself to survive, and if the egg, who laid the egg? 

I think this is more pertinent to the question of abiogenesis than evolution. Evolution deals with how species mutate and change over long periods of time. After long periods, this leads to speciation. Abiogenesis is the study of how life arose (i.e. how that egg or chicken or more probably a single celled organism came to exist). Somehow, people tend to conflate the two concepts. 

9 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

So you now have science fiction trying to work in aliens into the creation, in order to rationalize out God. But the problem with this is that it fails to account for how the aliens were created, and by whom. One theory is to say that the creators that seeded life were extra-dimensional characters that came from a dimension where time does not exist. That is why so much time and resources are being poured into things like CERN to open doors to these extra dimensions. Anything but to admit that there is a creator God.    

I'm not sure where you are getting this idea. Perhaps you are referring to the idea of panspermia. This is a hypothesis in the truest sense of the word and hard to advance to the stage of a scientific theory until we start exploring other planets in greater detail. Either way, the idea of panspermia is in it's infancy. As to the extra-dimensional stuff, this I haven't heard and I work in a science based field and have plenty of friends in astrophysics. CERN really isn't focused on other dimensions. That is misinformed. It's focusing on particle physics and mostly deals with subatomic particles. If you have some link to this research and extra dimensions please share your source.   

[dhchristian]

Just now, ChessPlayer said:

Hmm... Not entirely sure I agree here. Why would you characterize theistic evolution as weaker (either scientifically or theologically) than YEC or OEC? 

Scientifically, because of the Order of created thing assuming Long days of creation do not allow for this to be possible. So for example plants are created the day before the sun was, well if this day lasted millions of years, how did they survive?  

Biblically, The Words "Morning and evening " (notice the singular) Point to a single 24 Hr. day,

Just now, ChessPlayer said:

I think this is more pertinent to the question of abiogenesis than evolution. Evolution deals with how species mutate and change over long periods of time. After long periods, this leads to speciation. Abiogenesis is the study of how life arose (i.e. how that egg or chicken or more probably a single celled organism came to exist). Somehow, people tend to conflate the two concepts. 

Abiogenesis, or the creation of life from a soup is another matter yet to be duplicated in a lab setting despite years of trying, But the paradox of the chicken and the egg is an evolutionary one. Let's assume an amoeba formed in the primordial soup, How did it already know that it had to divide itself in order to survive as a species? The probability of Life coming into existence is astronomical to begin with If not near impossible, but for that life to come into being Also coming into being with the innate sense to reproduce makes it even more improbable, considering the previous life forms that died off were unable to pass this need down, because they were killed off not having this ability. Do You see what I am getting at? Not only did life have to form out of the primordial soup, but life that was capable of reproduction. Was the reproduction trait created first? Or was the Life form created first? They had to come to be simultaneously, which even the time and chance afforded do not allow. Now Let's say you have a Lizard, and he gives birth to a mutated egg, that turns out to be chicken. Well, Now you have one chicken with no one to mate with, because cross mating between Genus is impossible. So the mutant chicken cannot reproduce with the reptile it came from, Neither can it reproduce with any other genus presuming it is the first of its kind. It is a big road block in the evolutionary tree that they cannot explain.

 

23 minutes ago, ChessPlayer said:

I'm not sure where you are getting this idea. Perhaps you are referring to the idea of panspermia. This is a hypothesis in the truest sense of the word and hard to advance to the stage of a scientific theory until we start exploring other planets in greater detail. Either way, the idea of panspermia is in it's infancy. As to the extra-dimensional stuff, this I haven't heard and I work in a science based field and have plenty of friends in astrophysics. CERN really isn't focused on other dimensions. That is misinformed. It's focusing on particle physics and mostly deals with subatomic particles. If you have some link to this research and extra dimensions please share your source.  

Look up string theory, and the theory of everything Re:CERN. 

I am not saying Panspermia will be the replacement for evolution, but do see the search for a similar such theory to replace evolution that makes time immaterial. 

[one.opinion]

8 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Of all the theories out there, theistic evolution is the weakest one. it is a compromise with no basis in either scripture nor science.

I will be happy to discuss with you why I disagree with this dismissive assessment. Are you willing to have a discussion where both parties attempt to understand the other?

[ChessPlayer]

11 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Scientifically, because of the Order of created thing assuming Long days of creation do not allow for this to be possible. So for example plants are created the day before the sun was, well if this day lasted millions of years, how did they survive?  

Biblically, The Words "Morning and evening " (notice the singular) Point to a single 24 Hr. day,

I'm not that your points really respond to modern views on theistic evolution. Generally theistic evolutionists view Genesis in a less literalistic manner than certain branches of fundamentalist Christianity. Theistic evolutionists argue for an approach similar to certain members of the early Church like Augustine or Origen or even Jewish scholars from the time such as Philo. These thinkers viewed Genesis in a very different manner than the Christian fundamentalist movement which had its origins in the 19th century.   

11 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Abiogenesis, or the creation of life from a soup is another matter yet to be duplicated in a lab setting despite years of trying, But the paradox of the chicken and the egg is an evolutionary one. Let's assume an amoeba formed in the primordial soup, How did it already know that it had to divide itself in order to survive as a species? The probability of Life coming into existence is astronomical to begin with If not near impossible, but for that life to come into being Also coming into being with the innate sense to reproduce makes it even more improbable, considering the previous life forms that died off were unable to pass this need down, because they were killed off not having this ability. Do You see what I am getting at? Not only did life have to form out of the primordial soup, but life that was capable of reproduction. Was the reproduction trait created first? Or was the Life form created first? They had to come to be simultaneously, which even the time and chance afforded do not allow. Now Let's say you have a Lizard, and he gives birth to a mutated egg, that turns out to be chicken. Well, Now you have one chicken with no one to mate with, because cross mating between Genus is impossible. So the mutant chicken cannot reproduce with the reptile it came from, Neither can it reproduce with any other genus presuming it is the first of its kind. It is a big road block in the evolutionary tree that they cannot explain.

I see what you're getting at but once again I think you are misunderstanding evolution. Definitions of life generally include the definition of being able to reproduce. Evolution really only concerns what happens to life upon generations of mutation and reproduction. How and why reproduction or life itself began is the subject of abiogenesis. Early life and reproduction was likely mitosis driven as it still seen in single celled organisms such as bacteria. This entire idea of a lizard giving birth to a chicken in an egg is a gross mischaracterization of evolutionary biology as well. Speciation does not happen that quickly. Instead it is slight changes over long periods of time that leads to speciation. This means that there is no worry about such massive differences as to produce problems with reproduction. And we know that certain groups separated by little time (on an evolutionary timeline) from a common ancestor can reproduce. Perhaps one of the best known is examples are modern homo sapiens and Neanderthals who coexisted and based on DNA evidence reproduced. Humans still contain Neanderthal DNA in small amounts (generally around 1% according to most studies).   

11 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Look up string theory, and the theory of everything Re:CERN. 

I am not saying Panspermia will be the replacement for evolution, but do see the search for a similar such theory to replace evolution that makes time immaterial. 

Regarding string theory, it is one model as to how a quantum mechanics and the Standard Model could be unified. CERN is mostly about collecting data on high energy particles. The data is somewhat helpful for explaining how quantum mechanics and the Standard Model can be reconciled but that is not the only purpose. It should be noted that String Theory is not the only option available to physicists and although certain extra dimensions are proposed, I'm not sure exactly why you see this as relevant to evolutionary biology. Could you explain the connection you see here?

Panspermia doesn't really conflict with evolution. I'm not sure where you are getting that. It's more dealing with how life appeared on Earth in the first place rather than how it evolved on Earth. This is once again more of an abiogenesis question than an evolutionary biology question.